Vermillion
Banned
I've been wondering for a while. Go easy on me.
That's surprising, as it's mechanism of action was never expected to be selflessness.Greed
Unlikely. Economics needs regular cash flow for change to take place. Giving everyone a little extra here or there won't change much. Something like socializing education, which would free up tens of thousands on every family, plus furthering their opportunities, would have a massive impact."Trickle up" economics might be viable. No-one ever really talks about that.
"Trickle up" economics might be viable. No-one ever really talks about that.
It does work sometimes, and other times not so much. It depends on the company, how they run things, and how much they exploit their workers. For instance it does not work if a company ships its bottom tier workforce overseas. If China is making your shoes, then it fails. If your customer support is sent to India, again it fails. The trickling is going overseas. That seems to be the norm now, so the philosophy behind it no longer works.
"Trickle up" economics might be viable. No-one ever really talks about that.
In very simple terms: Because it relies on rich people spending equal or faster then they make money.
But they don't - because there's no security in spending all the money you're making. And it's not even possible for many of them to do so.
Unlikely. Economics needs regular cash flow for change to take place. Giving everyone a little extra here or there won't change much. Something like socializing education, which would free up tens of thousands on every family, plus furthering their opportunities, would have a massive impact.
And done.
If you give a dollar to a poor, he'll buy a hamburger. If you give 100k to a rich one, he'll put them in an offshore account.
You are right that those with low income would spend it, which is why it would change nothing. Investment in capital is what changes economic stature, not expenditure.My point being that that wealth would trickle up to the rich. There's a lot more incentive for low-income to spend money than for wealthy people to do so - and, for that matter, for them to keep it within the country - hence the rich would reap the benefits in due course.
You are right that those with low income would spend it, which is why it would change nothing. Investment in capital is what changes economic stature, not expenditure.
So basically it doesn't work for nearly every large corporation in America.
Seems like a genius plan for Romney to try bringing it back after it failed us miserably in the economic meltdown at the end of the last decade.
Right, but we're talking about making lives better for the poor, right? The business owners are already doing reasonably well (let's say). The poor people clearly aren't. Giving them a way to feed more money into those with capital is only the slightest of upgrades. Real change comes about when they are given means, not a slight increase in cash flow.If poor people spend money, where does it go? Into the owners of businesses. And what do they do? Invest in capital in order to keep getting that money in the future.
Changes in Demand forces the issue much more.
I think you are correct. In a less globalized and homogenized world 20 years ago it was a completely valid economic policy. Today it does not work. The focus should be creating new industry. Stuff that you cannot ship off. Renewable energy, drugs that actually work. Advanced automobiles, safety features, video games film and art. We need a new Renaissance. That is what our candidates should be running on.
Right, but we're talking about making lives better for the poor, right? The business owners are already doing reasonably well (let's say). The poor people clearly aren't. Giving them a way to feed more money into those with capital is only the slightest of upgrades. Real change comes about when they are given means, not a slight increase in cash flow.
Black MambaWhat trickles down is technological advancement and rises in standard of living as a result
If the rich invest more, they end up investing in new inventions that otherwise would have taken longer. New inventions are awesome and/or reduce costs. Think of the cell phone. 20 years ago almost no one had one. Today, so many people do (or if they don't, it's by choice).
Unfortunately, you can make everyone better but the rich could become relatively better than everyone else.
The other problem is that there the rich having more money doesn't mean they'll actually invest more. With more money comes the less need for more money and thus less investing (or risky investment, perhaps).
And of course we're not nearly as closed an economy as we once were (outsourcing).
Stuff can "trickle down," so to speak, but the process doesn't occur just by handing over as much money as possible to "job creators," which is what trickle-down proponents like to claim.
It should be noted there is no economist that believes in "trickle-down economics" at this time that I'm aware of. Hell, most supply-siders have either abandoned that belief or altered it drastically based on what we're pretty sure we know.
haha, exactly.Because it's a scam.
"Let me have your money, I'll work it out for us" is bullshit in any language or situation.
Give it time.
It didn't even work 20 years ago...
In very simple terms: Because it relies on rich people spending equal or faster then they make money.
But they don't - because there's no security in spending all the money you're making. And it's not even possible for many of them to do so.
People have been inheriting and then spending money on hookers & blow for thousands of years.Prestige and being rich has very different connotations now as to how it did decades ago.
Wealth is just sitting as wealth when rich people actually have no ambitions. You can sort of pretend them buying yachts and designer shit is stimulating the economy, but the truth is, wealthy people of the past used to spend that wealth on their own little business empires to be seen as someone important and flash cash in career ways rather than diamond encrusted toilet seats. Thus their money would in turn directly be creating jobs. Now however, people earn this same level of prestige and importance through just being rich and famous alone. No need to put any back in, save it all so their spoilt brat fuck offspring live like princes and princesses forever. Worse still for bankers, where the top number in their account is all that matters, like theyre playing some high score game, fuck needing employees.
Short version: where once people wanted to be business moguls with vast empires of employees, now people just want to be a rock star.
It really did. Before outsourcing and machines taking over a ton of jobs, there existed a class that I think we are losing. No they were not making millions, but they were doing hard jobs and making a living off of them. The US is transporting tens of millions of jobs overseas now for pennies on the dollar. The only way to fix that is to create new industry, because we cannot force companies to hire in house or they will just move away.
What about "job creators"? Does cutting taxes on small business owners necessarily encourage them to hire more people or pay them any better?
In very simple terms: Because it relies on rich people spending equal or faster then they make money.
But they don't - because there's no security in spending all the money you're making. And it's not even possible for many of them to do so.
We have to head towards a Star Trek future or society will collapse when 3D printing is used to make everything and is mostly automated.
There just won't be enough jobs for everyone in the future under our current economic system. If we don't provide food and shelter to everyone by default for just being human, we will have ever growing hordes of homeless unemployed until they reach sufficient numbers to cause society as we know it to collapse.
Pretty much.
"Trickle down" as a concept can never work in the real world.
A rich person has never, and will never, spend as much as they earn.